RES 12492 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Site 17 Axis Community Health with 14 units The same mixed use and single-family residential development assumptions, and acreage assumptions as shown in Table 3-3 of the SEIR apply to this Alternative. Finding: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would provide no significant advantage from an environmental standpoint over the proposed project. While Alternative 2 would satisfy all of the Project Objectives, impacts to cultural resources and transportation and traffic would remain significant and unavoidable with this alternative. Other environmental resources would result in less than significant impacts, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 3, Excludes East Pleasanton Alternative 3, Excludes East Pleasanton, would result in the development of a total of 2,200 housing units to fulfill 100 percent of the RHNA and improve Pleasanton's jobs/housing balance as a means of reducing greenhouse emissions. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include rezoning to accommodate future residential growth, but excludes properties 11 and 14 which have been included in the plan area for the East Pleasanton Specific Plan, as well as Sites 2, 4, 18, 19, 20 and 21, which are smaller sites. Alternative 3 would rezone 9 of the 17 potential sites, specifically the sites that could accommodate larger developments and would include one downtown residential site to increase vitality in the downtown area. Alternative 3 would allow residential development on: • Site 1 BART Site with 300249 units • Site 3 Stoneridge Mall with 300 units • Site 6 Irby-Kaplan-Zia with 270 units • Site 7 Gateway with 279 units • Site 8 Auf de Mar/ Rickenback with 345 units • Site 9 Nearon with 150 units • Site 10 CarrAmerica with 252 units • Site 13 CM Capital Properties with 290 units • Site 17 Axis Community Health with 14 units The same mixed use and single-family residential development assumptions, and acreage assumptions as shown in Table 3-3 of the SEIR apply to this Alternative. Finding: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would provide no significant advantage from an environmental standpoint over the proposed project. While Alternative 3 would satisfy all of the Project Objectives, impacts to cultural resources and transportation and traffic would remain significant and unavoidable with this alternative. Other environmental resources would result in less than significant impacts, similar to the proposed project.